Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy
A Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy
Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an innovation that is transforming practices within the Architectural,
BIM adoption Engineering, Construction and Operation (AECO) sectors. Many studies have investigated the process of BIM
BIM diffusion adoption and diffusion and in particular, the drivers affecting adoption at different levels, ranging from in-
BIM adoption taxonomy dividual and team through organisations and supply chains to whole market level. However, in-depth in-
Innovation diffusion theory
vestigations of the stages of the BIM adoption process and the drivers, factors and determinants affecting such
Institutional theory
Technology acceptance model
stages are still lacking. A comprehensive classification and integration of adoption drivers and factors is absent as
these are disjointedly identified across disparate studies. There is also limited attention to the key terms and
concepts (i.e. readiness, implementation, diffusion, adoption) in this area of study.
This aim in this paper is twofold: (1) to develop and validate a Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy (UBAT); and
(2) to identify the taxonomy's constructs (i.e. three driver clusters and their 17 factors) that have influence on the
first three stages of the BIM adoption process namely, awareness, interest, and decision stages, and compare their
effects on each of the stages. The research uses: a systematic literature review and knowledge synthesisation to
develop the taxonomy; a confirmatory factor analysis for its validation; and an ordinal logistic regression to test
the effect of the UBAT's constructs on the BIM adoption process within the UK Architectural sector using a
sample of 177 organisations.
The paper is primarily intended to enhance the reader's understanding of the BIM adoption process and the
constructs that influence its stages. The taxonomy and its sets of drivers and determinants can be used to perform
various analyses of the BIM adoption process, delivering evidence and insights for decision makers within or-
ganisations and across whole market when formulating BIM diffusion strategies.
⁎
Correspondence to: A. L. Ahmed, Department of Architecture, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alaahmed1@sheffield.ac.uk, 90006@uotechnology.edu.iq (A.L. Ahmed), Mohamad.Kassem@northumbria.ac.uk (M. Kassem).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08.017
Received 3 November 2017; Received in revised form 4 August 2018; Accepted 29 August 2018
0926-5805/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
investigated the dynamics of BIM adoption within a specific market digital innovation in the construction sector” [9].
[13]. • Adoption vs. Implementation vs. Diffusion: a universal agree-
Studies examining BIM adoption at project level (i.e., Meso-level), ment on the definitions of these terms is lacking in the literature.
have addressed (1) the changing relationships among project stake- Adoption and implementation are often used interchangeably (as in,
holders and in particular the multi-disciplinary collaboration among ([23–27]; and [28]. This blurs the distinction between interrelated
them [14]; and BIM implementation motivations and the related project concepts such as adoption, implementation, and diffusion. Rogers
contextual factors [15]. [20] defines ‘adoption' as “a decision to make full use of an in-
Investigating BIM adoption at organisational level (Micro-level) has novation as the best course of action available” and ‘Implementa-
also attracted significant attention in recent years. Research has been tion' as that phase which occurs once an innovation has been put
focussed on three key areas: (a) understanding the process of BIM into use ([20], p.457). In Rogers's Innovation-Decision Process [20],
adoption and diffusion by proposing approaches for predicting BIM ‘adoption’ is one of the two outcomes (i.e. adoption, and rejection)
diffusion [16] or investigating the diffusion phase that follows BIM of Stage 3 (i.e. decision stage). Succar and Kassem [9] defines BIM
adoption [17]; (b) identifying the drivers and factors that affect in- adoption as the successful implementation whereby an organisation,
novation adoption [18], and (c) investigating relationships between following a readiness phase, crosses the ‘Point of Adoption' into one
organisation characteristics (e.g., size, age, resources, etc.) and the in- of the BIM capability stages, namely modelling, collaboration and
clination of organisations to adopt innovation [19]. integration. Moreover, the authors propose to overlay the connota-
One key opportunity to enhance upon existing literature is to ad- tion of both ‘implementation’ and ‘diffusion’ unto the term ‘adop-
dress the dispersion of BIM adoption drivers and factors and develop tion’ within the context of macro (i.e. market wide) adoption. These
appropriate theoretical constructs that synthesise this important varying definitions indicate that ‘adoption’ could be considered as a
knowledge domain. To address this opportunity, this paper will develop more holistic term than ‘implementation’, which refers to either a
and validate a Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy, and demonstrate its specific phase (e.g.,[20]) or a milestone (e.g.,[5]). Although this
application in investigating the process of BIM adoption by organisa- study adopts Rogers's multi-stage Innovation-Decision Process due
tions within the UK architectural sector. To deliver this aim, the re- to its explicit itemisation of the first three stages (i.e. awareness,
search questions that are used as a point of departure are: intention, decision) preceding adoption decisions, it recognises the
need for a more holistic definition of the term ‘adoption’ as proposed
• RQ1 - what are the drivers and factors affecting BIM adoption by in Succar and Kassem [5].
organisations within the construction industry?; • Diffusion Dynamics: Combination of directional mechanics (i.e.,
• RQ2 - what are the theories, frameworks, and models adopted by Downward, Upward and Horizontal) and isomorphic pressures (i.e.,
scholars for examining BIM/innovation adoption and diffusion in Coercive, Mimetic and Normative) that allow innovation to con-
construction?; and tagiously pass from ‘transmitters’ to ‘adopters’ [9].
• RQ3 - How the results from addressing RQ1 and RQ2 above can be • Macro-Meso-Micro: analytical levels [29] or clusters of organisa-
used to develop a new conceptual framework for investigating the tional scales [30]. The Macro cluster includes subdivisions, sectors,
effects of the taxonomy's constructs on the different phases of the industries and specialities at market wide level. Meso cluster includes
BIM adoption process (i.e. awareness, interest, and adoption deci- project-centric organisational teams that are aggregated at a project
sion)? level; and the Micro cluster includes individuals and groups at an
organisational subdivision level.
The paper addresses in the following sections: clarification of key
terms and concepts underpinning the BIM adoption domain; the sys- 3. Methodology and research methods
tematic literature review and knowledge synthesisation process
adopted to develop the taxonomy; the confirmatory factor analysis There seems to be a consensus among scholars that new knowledge
performed to validate the taxonomy's constructs and assess the relia- can be created by building upon existing literature [31–34]. This can be
bility of measurements; the application of the taxonomy to analyse the achieved by adapting existing theories, building new theories or syn-
BIM adoption process by organisations within the UK Architectural thesizing multiple theories [33,35–43]. However, the literature review
sector; and the theoretical implications and practical uses stemming must have certain properties in order to produce new knowledge. Ac-
from this study. cording to Schryen et al. [44], there are three key properties: 1.
synthesis and interpretation of existing literature through framing ex-
2. Key terms and concepts isting research in theory or identifying existing gap; 2. focus on domain
knowledge as the realm of knowledge about a particular field, and 3.
This research investigates BIM adoption at organisational level Comprehensiveness through the inclusion of representative and pivotal
while considering the pertinent market-wide aspects. Several of the studies. To satisfy the three characteristics (i.e. synthesis and inter-
terms used across this scale of investigation may have competing or pretation, focus on domain knowledge; and comprehensiveness), a
complementary definitions. This section clarifies the position of this systematic literature review approach was adopted. The systematic
research in relation to these terms after briefly illustrating some of their literature review aggregates the existing studies on a certain topic;
existing interpretations: provides clarification of potential inconsistencies; and validates existing
research findings [33]. It helps to minimise bias (systematic error);
• Innovation: The term refers to “an idea, practice, or object that is address clear research questions, and understand the reasons for het-
perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” ([20], erogeneity between apparently similar studies [45]. Accumulating
p.457). Within an ‘organisational’ context innovation can be un- knowledge of several different but related studies is considered an ef-
derstood as “the development and implementation of new ideas by ficient approach to achieve a generalised and comprehensive overview
people who over time engage in transactions with others within an on a particular issue [46]. The systematic literature review also (1)
institutional order” ([21], p.590), and “the implementation of an helps to recognise gaps and suggest opportunities for future research,
internally generated or a borrowed idea – whether pertaining to a and (2) is considered a trustworthy, rigorous, and auditable metho-
product, device, system, process, policy, program or service – that dology for collecting and combining existing research knowledge [47].
was new to the organisation at the time of adoption” ([22], p.392). Well-structured taxonomies allow “the meaningful clustering of
These complementary definitions are suitable for this study purpose experience” ([48], p. 24) and are a means towards a number of different
which adopts the definition of BIM as “the current expression of ends including the expansion generalisation of knowledge ([49],
104
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
105
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A7 summarises the results for RQ2 from across the 34 studies. from the IDT (i.e., control variables and economic motivations in [15];
26 (76%) studies adopted theoretical standpoints to analyse the process technology innovation and top management support in [63]) and the
of IS/BIM adoption. The theories adopted included: Innovation Diffu- INT (i.e., social motivations in [15], and client support and trading
sion Theory (IDT) (53%), Institutional Theory (INT) (26%), Technology partner in [63]). This shows that drivers and factors affecting the de-
Acceptance Model (TAM) (21%), mixed-theories (21%), and Theory of cision to adopt BIM/innovation by organisations are dispersed among
Reasoned Action (TRA) (6%). different studies as a result of the specific theoretical lens adopted by
The Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) proposes five elements to scholars. The proposed taxonomy will address this limitation by in-
describe the characteristics of an innovation: relative advantage, com- cluding an extensive set of BIM adoption drivers, factors and determi-
patibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. It explains the nants. It will also contribute to addressing some of the emerging re-
characteristics of an adopter (i.e., characteristics of an individual or the search questions in the area of BIM adoption at both organisational and
decision-making unit) in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, per- market level as evidenced in this paper.
sonality variables, and communication behaviour ([20], p.282). The
IDT suggests a five-stage model of ‘innovation-decision process’, which
5. The BIM adoption taxonomy
includes awareness, interest, decision, implementation, and confirma-
tion ([20], p.169).
The BIM adoption taxonomy emerged as a result of our investigation
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) seeks to predict users'
of RQ1 (i.e. what are the drivers and factors affecting the decision to
acceptance of a technological innovation and explains the behaviour of
adopt BIM at organisation level within the construction industry?)
individuals against IT acceptance [57]. The TAM identifies two factors
(Table A8); and RQ2 (i.e. what are the theories, frameworks, and
as determinants for the use of a new system: perceived ease of use, and
models adopted by scholars for examining BIM/innovation adoption
perceived usefulness [58]. It establishes theoretical linkages among
and diffusion in construction?). The hierarchical taxonomy has three
beliefs, intention, and action to explain a system use: the user's belief
levels covering drivers, factors and determinants of BIM adoption
(i.e., perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness) about a given
(Fig. 2).
system influences the user's behaviour and intention to use the system,
The first level of the taxonomy identifies three driver clusters: the
which in turn, determines its actual use.
BIM innovation characteristics; the external environment characteristics,
The Institutional Theory (INT) suggests diffusion dynamics in which
and the internal environment characteristics. The three clusters are further
external isomorphic pressures motivate organisations to perform be-
expanded at the second and the third level of the taxonomy that es-
havioural and structural changes while seeking to acquire social le-
tablish respectively the adoption factors within each driver cluster and
gitimacy [59]. The institutional pressures include: coercive, mimetic,
the determinants representing the different manifestations of each
and normative pressures [59,60]. Organisations comply with formal
factor.
pressures (mandates, regulations), mimic successful practices, or con-
The BIM innovation characteristics, include factors such as relative
form to informal restrictions (i.e., beliefs, norms, and conventions). The
advantage; compatibility; complexity; trialability; observability
institutional legitimacy is determined by the organisations' response
[20,62]; perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness [64]. The re-
towards these pressures.
lative advantage is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
The review shows that the simultaneous use of the Innovation
being better than the idea it supersedes” ([20], p. 229). Compatibility
Diffusion Theory (IDT) and Institutional Theory (INT) in investigating
reflects the “consistency of the innovation with existing values, past
the decisions to adopt BIM by organisations is limited. Only five papers
experiences and needs of potential adopters” ([20], p. 240). Com-
(i.e., ([9,15,61,62]; and [63]) included to a varying degree aspects from
plexity, is “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to
the two theories. For example, in [9] the two theories are mentioned
understand and use”([20], p. 257). Trialability is “a measure of the
but their use aimed to clarify and demarcate the key terms and concepts
availability of the innovation to potential adopters for trial periods”.
for the purpose of developing new constructs for macro BIM adoption.
Observability measures “the degree to which the results on an in-
Both ([61,62] mainly embraced constructs from the INT (i.e. iso-
novation are visible to others” ([20], p. 258). The perceived ease of use
morphic pressures) combined with a marginal use of IDT aspects to
is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system
investigate BIM adoption. ([15,63] focused on a few selected aspects
will be effortless” ([58], p. 320). There is an apparent similarity
106
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
107
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
between the ‘complexity' construct within IDT and the ‘perceived ease pressures. Normative pressures stem from common norms and shared
of use’ in TAM as they often complement each other [11]. However, values that are related to professionalization and relations with orga-
‘Complexity’ involves the formation of favourable or unfavourable at- nisations [59,74]. Therefore, an organisation adopts an innovation to
titudes towards an innovation before the decision to adopt is made either, comply with formal coercive pressures (mandates, regulations),
[11,46], while ‘perceived ease of use’ is a determinant of actual system mimic successful prior adopters, or conform to informal restrictions
use (implementation) at the implementation stage after the decision to (i.e., beliefs, norms, and conventions). The response to these pressures
adopt has been made [11]. The perceived usefulness indicate the determines the organisation institutional legitimacy (Table A11).
adopter's belief that using a particular system will enhance job perfor- The BIM adoption taxonomy in Fig. 2 includes a non-extensive list of
mance ([58], p. 320). The technological factors includes factors such as determinants (Level 3 of the taxonomy). An extensive list of determi-
interoperability, compatibility, cost and the relative advantages asso- nants across the three driver clusters and their factors is included in the
ciated with the use of the innovation [18] (Table A9). appendix in Tables A9, A10 and A11.
The internal environment characteristics of a decision unit or an
organisation include factors such as: top management support, com- 6. Validity and reliability of the taxonomy
munication behaviour, financial resources and perceived cost, organi-
sational readiness, social motivations, organisational culture, will- The testing of the validity and reliability of the taxonomy was
ingness/intention, and organisation size [65–67]. The top management performed using confirmatory factor analysis. To attain the required
support represents their attitude towards promoting and supporting data for the testing, a survey approach was adopted using an online
internal motivations to actively embrace innovative technologies such structured questionnaire. 509 organisations were invited to participate
as BIM [11]. The communication behaviour represents the effectiveness in the data collection campaign. 177 valid responses were returned and
of information flows (i.e., communication flows) within an organisation 6 incomplete responses were discarded resulting in response rate of
and affect the strength of relationships with other parties [68]. Fi- 36%. The targeted organisations are listed within the Royal Institute of
nancial resources and Perceived cost include a range of economic fac- British Architects (RIBA) as organisations offering BIM services. The
tors related to the implementation of the BIM innovation within orga- selected respondent representing each organisation is an individual
nisations and projects [18,68]. The Organisational readiness is the pre- who was either involved in or knowledgeable about the process that led
implementation status representing the propensity of an organisation or their organisation to adopt BIM. Such individuals assumed positions
organisational unit to adopt BIM tools, workflows and protocols [9]. such as directors, partners and BIM managers. Following their consent
Readiness describes the level of preparation, the potential to partici- which was obtained either during a phone call or direct messaging via
pate, or the capacity to innovate ([9], p. 65). Social motivations include LinkedIn, they were invited to submit their responses using an online
a range of determinants that can be affected by social interactions such survey tool. The data collection campaign started in mid-January 2017
as the attitude and perceptions of both individuals and groups with and concluded in August 2017.
regards to BIM adoption. The questionnaire included two sections: the first section aimed to
The organisational culture brings adoption determinants such as the collect demographic information (i.e. organisation size, number of BIM
willingness to restructure or reengineer processes; the corporate man- projects, and dates/timing of decisions to adopt BIM); the second sec-
agement style; the learning and growth perspective; the openness of tion included 77 statements covering the 20 taxonomy's constructs (20
discussions; and the availability of support for individual and group clusters of factors under the three drivers (i.e. BIM Innovation char-
during the transition ([12,66,68]. acteristics; External Environment characteristics, and Internal
The identified determinants related to the organisational Environment characteristics). Table A12 contains a sample of the
Willingness/intention include the level of business interest in BIM in- statements included in the questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale -
novation [14], the need for BIM personnel and training [68], the need ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ - was used to mea-
for innovation [69], organisations' individual enjoyment with innova- sure the respondents' level of agreement with the various statements
tion [70], and the organisational competitive advantages [14,71]. Fi- that represents the measurement items of the taxonomy's constructs
nally, the organisational size determinants include the size of the whole (e.g. drivers and their corresponding factors).
organisation, the size of its information system department, and the
organisational complexity [57] (Table A10). 6.1. Measurement models and their structural equation models
The external environment characteristics affects innovation adoption
through isomorphic pressures; competitive and institutional [59,72]. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate
Competitive pressures involve pressures towards similarity resulting and validate the measurement models that represented the taxonomy's
from market competition (e.g., supply and demand dynamics) [19,73]. constructs in the form of structural equation Models (SEM). 17 out of
Institutional isomorphic pressures – which include coercive pressures; the 19 constructs were tested. Two constructs (i.e., perceived useful-
mimetic pressures; normative pressures – involve “organisational ness; and perceived ease of use under the BIM innovation character-
competition for political and institutional legitimacy as well as market istics) were excluded from the measurement models since their effect,
position” ([72], p. 657). Coercive pressures emerge from political effect according to the innovation adoption literature [11,46,58], unfold at
and legitimacy issues [59]. These effects might be formal (e.g. a market the implementation stage after the adoption decision has been made
BIM mandate, regulatory requirement) and informal pressures applied (i.e. in implementation Stage, Stage IV in Rogers's Innovation-Decision
on organisations by other organisations upon which they are dependent Process), while the survey questions were focussed on analysing the
[74]. These informal pressures could be sensed as forces, persuasion, or adoption process up to decision stage. 17 constructs pertinent to three
as offers to join in alliances. Mimetic pressures emerge from competitive BIM adoption drivers (i.e. external environment characteristics, in-
forces and may drive the organisation to equivalent adoption decisions novation characteristics, and internal environment characteristics)
as its successful peers [59]. Hence, mimetic pressures may exhibit ei- were validated. These included: three constructs (i.e. coercive pres-
ther forms: by imitating competitors who have achieved successful sures, mimetic pressures, and normative pressures) associated with the
adoption of an innovation, or based on the rate of an innovation external environment characteristics; six constructs (i.e. relative ad-
adoption (i.e. proportion of adoption in the social system reaches the vantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability, and
social threshold) in the industry where the organisation operates [74]. technological factors) with the innovation characteristics; and eight
This process is also called social learning [59] and is based on the constructs (i.e. top management support, communication behaviour,
bandwagon effect [75]. Due to the similarity between the competitive financial resources, organisational readiness, social motivations, orga-
pressures and mimetic pressures, their effect is substituted with mimetic nisational culture, willingness/intention, and organisation size) with
108
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table 2 value of the factor loading exceeds 0.50 [79]. The factor loadings for
Cut-off of fitness indices. all the 17 constructs were acceptable values, ranging from 0.588 to
Index Abbreviation Acceptable level 0.940 (Table 3).
The three CFA measurement models were evaluated for validity and 7. Use of the taxonomy to investigate BIM adoption within the UK
reliability. Three types of validity were tested:
7.1. Conceptual model
• Convergent validity: it evaluates relationships between the observed
variables and the constructs [78]. It was tested on the basis that the The analysis and synthesis of the SRL findings are used to develop a
factor loading of each item in the construct should be statistically conceptual model for the empirical investigation of the BIM adoption
significant from zero and the validity will be achieved when the process within organisations. The model merges together an adapted
109
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table 3
Results of the three CFA measurement models.
Construct Item retained Factor loading p-Value S.M.C (C.R.) AVE Cronbach's Alpha
(R2)
*** = 0.001; S.M.C (squared multiple correlation); AVE: (average variance extracted); C.R: (composite reliability).
view of the innovation adoption process by Rogers [20] and key con- investigate effect of the external environment characteristics (i.e. in-
ceptual constructs of the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and In- stitutional isomorphic pressures). The interactions between the con-
stitutional Theory (INT) theories (Fig. 3). structs from the IDT and INT on the adoption process are illustrated in
The IDT provides the theoretical requisites for investigating the Fig. 3. The awareness stage (Stage I) occurs when an organisation or a
effect of both the BIM characteristics (i.e. innovation attributes) and the decision-making unit is exposed to a new innovation (i.e. BIM) and
organisation's internal environment characteristics (i.e., adopter or or- starts to gain knowledge about it. This stage may be triggered by some
ganisation readiness) on the BIM adoption process. The INT will help to of the internal environment characteristics (e.g., communication
110
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table 6
Inter-correlation matrix of discriminant validity for the innovation characteristics.
Constructs Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability Technological factors
The square root of average variance extracted (diagonal) of each construct and correlation with other constructs (off-diagonal).
111
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table 7
Inter-correlation matrix of discriminant validity for the internal environment characteristics.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The square root of average variance extracted (diagonal) of each construct and correlation with other constructs (off-diagonal).
The ‘Decision’ stage was influenced by seven factors (i.e. point of departure for investigating new theoretical explorations and
Communication behaviour, Organisation size, Relative advantage, practical questions in the BIM adoption body of knowledge. One such
Compatibility, Coercive pressures, Organisational readiness and Top man- application showing the use of the taxonomy in exploring new research
agement support) from across the three driver clusters. Similarly to the questions was presented in this paper, when the taxonomy was used to
intention stage, only coercive pressures had a positive and significant develop a conceptual model for investigating the BIM adoption process.
influence on the decision to adopt BIM by architectural organisations. The conceptual model was used to explore the influence of the tax-
These results represent the effect of ‘individual’ driving factor on onomy's constructs (i.e. drivers and factors) on the stages of BIM
BIM adoption as identified by the Ordinal Logistic Regression analysis. adoption by organisations. The model was also used to rank the factors
However, the coexistence of different factors – even those that were not affecting each adoption stage according to their power of influence.
found to have significant and positive influence - at each stage of the BIM adoption and diffusion studies have proliferated in recent years
adoption process can result in new influences and dynamics. These yet, the majority of these studies have been innovation-centric with the
interplays will be captured through correlation analysis in future ex- investigated innovation being a finite – not multifaceted – innovation
tension of this work. (e.g. a product innovation such as a new learning or communication
The results illustrated in Fig. 4 also rank the influence of the dif- technology). This study instigates the need for new and tailored BIM
ferent factors on each stage of the adoption process. The ranking is adoption studies. This need is supported by the following observations:
expressed as the power of influence of each factor and was ordered (1) BIM unlike other finite innovations is a multifaceted innovation (i.e.
based on the lowest P-value (i.e., ≤0.05) and highest ‘Estimate’ value of a product, process and policy) involving multiple stages of im-
the results of Ordinal Logistic Regression test. Willingness is the factor plementation targeting different capability stages (i.e. modelling, col-
with the highest influence on the Awareness stage. Communication be- laboration, and integration); (2) BIM implementation is also a project
haviour has the highest influence on both the Intention stage and Decision network topic affected by interdependences of supply chains [89]; and
stage. Communication behaviour represents the effectiveness of in- (3) BIM is one of the fewest innovations within the construction sector
formation flows (i.e., communication flows) within an organisation and that attracted the interest of stakeholders longitudinally across con-
affect the strength of relationships with other parties [68]. It can be struction sectors (i.e. industry associations, academia and communities
either formal or intra-organisational communication (e.g., working of interest) and vertically across countries (i.e. at city, region and nation
colleagues interacting within the same organisation unit), or informal level). Many countries are investigating and developing national BIM
and inter-organisational communication (e.g., like-minded individuals policies to facilitate BIM adoption across their respective markets [90].
from different organisations sharing good practices for their individual They are increasingly releasing a variety of strategy documents, adop-
mutual advantage) [103]. tion reports, data exchange standards, and collaboration protocols [55].
Existing studies on BIM adoption – as evidenced in the systematic lit-
erature presented earlier – have rarely considered the simultaneous
8. Discussion potential influence that multiple stakeholders within a market, the
supply chain, and a project environment exert on BIM adoption and
The key knowledge deliverables in this paper (i.e. the taxonomy, diffusion. Hence, this study and its further progression are focused on
and the conceptual model) and the empirical investigation represent a conducting holistic investigations of BIM adoption that are commen-
new contribution to knowledge. The UBAT taxonomy is one the first surate to the peculiarities of BIM.
BIM adoption taxonomies that (1) includes an extensive set of adoption The proposed taxonomy and the conceptual model recognise these
drivers and factors, and (2) amalgamates constructs from both the in- peculiarities of BIM. They are capable of capturing influences from
stitutional and the diffusion of innovation theories. However, the tax- organisation, project and market environment by merging constructs of
onomy is intended as a mean, not an end in itself. It should form the
Table 8
Hypotheses about effects of external environment's factors on adoption stages.
Factors Code Hypotheses
Coercive pressures H1 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to be aware of BIM.
H2 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to develop interest in adopting BIM.
H3 Architectural organisations which are subjected to coercive pressures are more likely to make the decision to adopt BIM.
Mimetic pressures H4 Architectural organisations which are subjected to mimetic pressures are more likely to be aware of BIM.
H5 Architectural organisations which are subjected to mimetic pressures are more likely to develop interest in adopting BIM.
H6 Architectural organisations which are subjected to mimetic pressures are more likely to make the decision to adopt BIM.
Normative pressures H7 Architectural organisations which are subjected to normative pressures are more likely to be aware of BIM.
H8 Architectural organisations which are subjected to normative pressures are more likely to develop interest in adopting BIM.
H9 Architectural organisations which are subjected to normative pressures are more likely to make the decision to adopt BIM.
112
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Fig. 3. Conceptual Model for investigating BIM adoption decisions (adapted from Rogers's [20]).
institutional theory (i.e. different isomorphic pressure types) with those the diffusion of each stage of the BIM adoption process. This analysis
of innovation diffusion theory (i.e. internal environment characteristics, could not be included in this paper, but it will delivered in a future
innovation characteristics). The taxonomy's drivers and factors can be paper.
empirically assessed, compared and analysed to understand BIM Some of the further research questions with practical significance in
adoption within organisations and its diffusion across whole markets. the area of BIM adoption that can be addressed using the knowledge
The paper has described one such application of the taxonomy that was deliverables of this paper include:
performed within the UK architectural sector. The influence of the
taxonomy's drivers on each of the three adoption stages (i.e. awareness, • Understanding the impact of drivers on BIM adoption within a single
intention, and decision) was tested and the factors with positive asso- market: this entails the assessment and comparison of the relative
ciations with each adoption stage were identified. The factors were also effect of key market-wide drivers such as BIM mandate (e.g. the UK
ranked based on their level of influence on each of the adoption stages. BIM mandate), other isomorphic pressure types, BIM innovation
The results can help decision makers at organisational level and market characteristics, and internal environment characteristics on the de-
wide level to understand the potential impact of certain actions or cision to adopt BIM by organisations.
decisions on the adoption process. For example, an organisation deci- • Assessing and comparing the impact of drivers on BIM adoption
sion maker, knowing that ‘communication behaviour’ is key to both across multiple markets: This involves investigating the role of and
formulating the intention and decision to adopt BIM, can plan to un- relationship between BIM adoption drivers/determinants across
dertake deliberate actions to improve the organisation's communication markets characterised by different diffusion dynamics - i.e. the
behaviour by strengthening intra- and inter-organisational commu- bottom-up, the middle-out, and the top-down dynamics as identified
nication channels. Similarly, policy makers can conceive actions to in- in Succar and Kassem [5]. The hypothesis underpinning this line of
crease channels of communications and interactions between organi- enquiry is that organisational characteristics (e.g. culture, structural
sations within their respective market knowing the positive influence of complexity, size) and some of their external environment char-
this driver on intention and decision to adopt BIM. This result is in acteristics may alter the influence of certain institutional pressures
accordance with recent policy studies and reports focussed on macro such as market-wide BIM mandates.
adoption. For example, Succar and Kassem [9] and the EU BIM Hand- • A specific derivation from the previous question is the comparison
book [91] both consider ‘communication' as a key area of activity in the of drivers' influence on the stages of BIM adoption across the dif-
process of promoting BIM adoption. ferent time periods underpinning a market-wide BIM mandate. For
This study also instigates the need to provide both theoretical and example, in the UK these time periods would be pre-2011 (i.e. pre-
empirical evidence of the impact of key external influences (e.g. a announcement of the UK BIM mandate), 2011–2016 (i.e. trial/im-
country BIM mandate) and their effectiveness while simultaneously plementation period of BIM mandate), and post 2016 (i.e. post
considering other types of adoption drivers and factors (e.g. internal mandate).
environment characteristics, and the innovation characteristics). The
knowledge deliverables proposed in this paper can be utilised to mea- Domain researchers are instigated to address these research ques-
sure the combined effect of coercive forces such as a market-wide BIM tions. The proposed BIM adoption taxonomy has some limitations.
mandate alongside other adoption factors and comparing their effect on Taxonomies have generally two desirable characteristics: (a) mutual
113
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Fig. 4. The results of the most influential factors at each stage of the BIM adoption process.
114
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
exclusiveness (only one place for any particular thing), and (b) innovation characteristics, external environment characteristics, and
Comprehensiveness of categories/topics (a place for everything). The internal environment characteristics); 19 factors distributed across the
mutual exclusiveness of factors to their corresponding driver's clusters three driver clusters; and an extensive set of determinants. The UBAT
was verified through the confirmatory factory analysis. The compre- was validated using a confirmatory factor analysis with data obtained
hensiveness was practically achieved through the coverage of both BIM from 177 architectural organisations operating in the UK. The results
and IS literature and the use of the systematic literature review. The proved that the UBAT's constructs are valid and the instruments used
limitations affecting the proposed taxonomy's comprehensiveness are and the data collected are reliable. A successful application of the UBAT
those typically associated with the possibility that the SLR omit some and the conceptual model was performed in the UK by retrospectively
relevant studies. analysing the first three stages of the BIM adoption process in archi-
tectural practices operating within the UK. The application helped
9. Conclusions identify the factors that influence each of the first three stages of the
BIM adoption process and ranked such factors according to their degree
Understanding the drivers and the process of BIM adoption is of of influence.
paramount importance to adopters and policy makers at both organi- The suitability of the UBAT and the conceptual model for exploring
sational and market wide level. The increased connotation and cov- new research questions within the BIM adoption domain was discussed.
erage of BIM, compared to other innovations that occurred within the It was clear that the UBAT and the conceptual model address the lack of
construction sector, warrant a new appraisal of the body of knowledge suitable taxonomies and theoretical constructs for investigating an in-
around innovation adoption. Key gaps and shortcomings identified in novation with increased connotations such as BIM. Finally, the paper
the BIM adoption literature include: the dispersion of adoption drivers instigated domain researchers to address a number of BIM adoption
across several studies due to the specific theoretical lenses adopted by research questions that are still unexplored. The taxonomy and the
the scholars; the limited attention dedicated to key terms and concepts conceptual model, when systematically applied to analyse BIM adop-
within the adoption literature (e.g. the interchangeable use of ‘adop- tion and diffusion within a specific market, can provide policy and
tion’ and ‘implementation’); and the lack of an extensive BIM adoption decision makers at both organisational and market level with insights
taxonomy. This study presented a Unified BIM Adoption Taxonomy about the potential influence of their diffusion activities.
(UBAT); developed a conceptual model for guiding the investigation of
various research questions pertinent to BIM adoption; and demon-
strated its application within the UK Architectural sector by empirically Acknowledgements
investigating the drivers and factors that influence the stages of the BIM
adoption process. This work has been sponsored by the Iraqi Ministry of Higher
The paper provided an explanation and demarcation of key concepts Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR) jointly with the
and terms underpinning the innovation adoption field. It illustrated the University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq. We also gratefully acknowl-
details of all stages and steps of the systematic literature review and edge the thorough and valuable feedback from Dr. Bilal Succar that
described the UBAT. The UBAT included three driver clusters (i.e., helped to shape and improve this manuscript.
Appendix A. Appendix
Table A1
Systematic literature review booleans and search terms.
ID Search string
First search string (BIM) (TITLE-ABS-KEY bim) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ((building information modelling)) AND TITLE-
ABS-KEY (adoption) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (implementation) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (diffusion) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((construction industry)) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (factor) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (macro) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (micro) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (market) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (country) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (uk) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (firm) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (organisation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (institution) OR TITLE-
ABS-KEY (aec) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (sme) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (isomorphic) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY ((isomorphic pressures)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (pressure) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (driver) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY internal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (external) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (coerc•) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (mimet•) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (normative) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY ((decision making)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (policy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (behaviour))
Second search string (information systems) (TITLE-ABS-KEY ((Information systems)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (IS) OR ((Executive information
system)) OR ((Large scale technology)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (IT) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (ICT)
OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (ERP) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (ERP2) AND TITLE-ABS-
KEY (adoption) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (implementation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (diffusion)
AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((construction industry)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (factor) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (macro) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (micro) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (market) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (country) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (uk) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (firm) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (organisation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (institution) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (aec) OR TITLE-
ABS-KEY (sme) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (isomorphic) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY ((isomorphic pressures}) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (pressure) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (driver) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY internal) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (external) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (coerc•) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (mimet•) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (normative) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY ((decision making)) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (policy) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (behaviour))
115
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A2
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Academic journal articles or conference proceedings papers with high • Studies in other-than-English language.
methodological standards. • Studies that are irrelevant to the two research questions.
• English language material. • Studies that are un-related to BIM/innovation adoption/diffusion and
• Primary studies related to the two research questions. are not focussed on the construction sectors.
• Studies that have reported the use of theories or developed • Duplicate materials (i.e. same studies that resulted from the
frameworks and models to investigate BIM/innovation within the application of different search string or retrieved from different online
construction sector. databases).
• Master dissertations, books chapters, conference review, prefaces and
opinions.
Table A3
Criteria for quality assessment.
QA item QA list
QA1. Contribution Does the paper add a contribution to the body of knowledge?
QA2. Theory Does the paper present an adequate literature review of the study domain including the underpinning theory?
QA3. Methodology Does the paper show a clear explanation of the methodology that can guarantee its replicability?
QA4. Analysis Does the paper have adequate data sample and its results support theoretical arguments with adequate explanations?
Table A4
An example of a data extraction card.
Study number 4
Name of the study Users-orientated evaluation of building information model in the Chinese
construction industry
Author(s) [11]
Year 2014
Publisher (journal/conference) Journal: Automation in Construction
Country China
Study methods considered for data collection Survey data from the construction industry in China:
- Semi-structured interviews: initially conducted with 10 people (executive vice
presidents and project managers involved in projects who are familiar with BIM
adoption in construction projects).
- Questionnaires: postal questionnaires, e-mailed questionnaires, and face-to-face
questionnaires.
Study type of analysis Quantitative statistical analyses
Target level (Macro, Meso, Micro) Industry-wide adoption in the China construction industry (Macro level)
Name/type of innovation BIM adoption
Applied/adopted theories, frameworks, processes, and - Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
models attributed to BIM/innovation - This study has proposed a research model by integrating TAM and IDT to scrutinise
the factors influencing BIM adoption
*The model draws on technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory
and is validated using survey data from the construction industry in China.
*Integrated technology acceptance model (TAM) and innovation diffusion theory
(IDT), which is used to identify and examine the key factors associated with BIM
adoption for potential users and experienced users. The study contributes to the
adoption of BIM by overcoming potential obstacles, reducing the risk of failure
during implementation and promoting widespread adoption.
Identified drivers and factors influencing BIM/innovation The findings of this study have identified/demonstrated that both the Perceived
adoption (implementation and diffusion) Usefulness (PU) and the Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) are the primary determinants of
BIM adoption, with indirect effect of the attitude, technological, and organisational
dimensions on the actual BIM use.
Current researcher reflection/review/critique This study attempted to understand the key factors affecting BIM adoption that
would be helpful in (1) promoting further adoption for potential and existing users
and (2) improving productivity in the AEC industry. Although this study states that
(continued on next page)
116
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A4 (continued)
the BIM adoption factors are investigated based on the use of both TAM and IDT, it
does rely heavily on the TAM factors rather than factors from both theories. It focuses
on BIM adoption from the perspective of predicting users' behavioural intention to
accept/reject and to use information systems. The study does consider the external
factors that may affect the adoption/diffusion.
Table A5
Scores from the quality assessment for the selected papers.
S1 [10] P P Y Y 3 75%
S2 [92] P P Y Y 3 75%
S3 [14] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S4 [11] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S5 [71] Y P Y Y 3.5 88%
S6 [17] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S7 [93] P P Y P 2.5 63%
S8 [12] P N Y Y 2.5 63%
S9 [68] Y P Y Y 3.5 88%
S10 [65] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S11 [94] P Y P P 2.5 63%
S12 [9] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S13 [69] Y Y Y P 3.5 88%
S14 [64] P Y P P 2.5 63%
S15 [95] P N Y Y 2.5 63%
S16 [96] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S17 [13] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S18 [18] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S19 [97] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S20 [98] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S21 [99] P Y Y Y 3.5 88%
S22 [100] P P P P 2 50%
S23 [73] P N P Y 2 50%
S24 [66] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S25 [70] Y P Y Y 3.5 88%
S26 [57] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S27 [62] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S28 [19] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S29 [61] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S30 [60] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
S31 [67] P P Y Y 3 75%
S32 [101] Y P Y Y 3.5 88%
S33 [15] Y P Y Y 3.5 88%
S34 [63] Y Y Y Y 4 100%
Average 84% 76% 94% 93% 88% 87%
Table A6
Demographic information of the selected studies, their research questions and targeted scale.
117
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A6 (continued)
Table A7
Theories used to explain BIM and innovation adoption across the 34 studies.
S1 [10] •
S2 [92]
S3 [14]
S4 [11] •
S5 [71]
S6 [17] •
S7 [93] •
S8 [12]
S9 [68]
S10 [65] •
S11 [94] •
S12 [9] •
S13 [69] •
S14 [64] •
S15 [95]
S16 [96] •
S17 [13] •
S18 [18] •
S19 [97] •
S20 [98] •
S21 [99] •
S22 [100]
S23 [73]
S24 [66] •
S25 [70] • •
S26 [57] • •
S27 [62] •
(continued on next page)
118
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A7 (continued)
S28 [19] •
S29 [61] •
S30 [60] •
S31 [67] •
S32 [101] •
S33 [15] •
S34 [63] • •
Table A8
The clusters of BIM adoption drivers across the studies identified.
S1 [10] ✔ ✔ ✔
S2 [92] ✔ ✖ ✔
S3 [14] ✔ ✖ ✔
S4 [11] ✔ ✖ ✔
S5 [71] ✖ ✔ ✖
S6 [17] ✖ ✔ ✔
S7 [93] ✔ ✔ ✔
S8 [12] ✔ ✖ ✔
S9 [68] ✔ ✔ ✔
S10 [65] ✔ ✔ ✖
S11 [94] ✔ ✔ ✔
S12 [9] ✔ ✔ ✔
S13 [69] ✔ ✔ ✖
S14 [64] ✖ ✔ ✔
S15 [95] ✔ ✖ ✖
S16 [96] ✔ ✔ ✔
S17 [13] ✖ ✔ ✔
S18 [18] ✔ ✔ ✔
S19 [97] ✖ ✔ ✖
S20 [98] ✔ ✖ ✔
S21 [99] ✔ ✖ ✔
S22 [100] ✔ ✔ ✖
S23 [73] ✔ ✔ ✖
S24 [66] ✔ ✖ ✔
S25 [70] ✔ ✖ ✔
S26 [57] ✔ ✔ ✔
S27 [62] ✔ ✔ ✔
S28 [19] ✔ ✔ ✔
S29 [61] ✔ ✔ ✔
S30 [60] ✖ ✔ ✖
S31 [67] ✔ ✔ ✔
S32 [101] ✖ ✔ ✖
S33 [15] ✔ ✔ ✔
S34 [63] ✔ ✔ ✔
Total percentage % 79% 74% 74%
Table A9
The clusters of the BIM innovation characteristics.
119
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A9 (continued)
Perceived ease of Understanding of BIM interoperability and ability to implement BIM tools
use Ease of getting expected outcomes by BIM
Personal recognition about ease of BIM operation
3 Relative Productivity improvement
advantage Overall advantage in BIM job roles compared to pre-BIM roles
shortening job duration and schedule
Improvement of task performance and speed
Effective reduction of risks
Increased effectiveness in quality control
Cost reduction/saving in workflows
Expense and maintenance cost
Consolidation of marketing strategy
Increase of product/deliverable security
4 Compatibility Ease of concurrent implementation or incorporation into existing processes
Applicability to existing processes without radical change
Compatibility of BIM with job roles
Compatibility of BIM with work style
5 Complexity Expectation that works become easier with BIM
Expectation of smoother work processes with BIM
Ease of familiarizing with BIM tools and processes
Simplification of collaboration processes within the organisation
Customisation and compatibility challenge
Harmonization between standards
6 Trialability Possibility of testing BIM tools and workflows before confirming adoption
Possibility of risk reduction from testing before adopting in practice
Possibility of testing various BIM tools' features to verify effects on deliverables
7 Observability Evidence of cost saving from use/profitability
Communicability and outcome/benefit demonstrability
Perceived risk (e.g. functional risk, physical risk, financial risk, social risk, psychological risk, and time risk) physical
risk, financial risk, social risk, psychological risk, and time risk
8 Technological Interoperability among software applications
factors Compatibility among software applications
Visualisation of design effects
Supporting characteristics and features
Information sharing capabilities
Table A10
Internal environment characteristics.
1 Top management support Senior management support (internal motivations to actively embrace innovative technologies such as BIM)
Level of bureaucracy in BIM adoption decision-making
Corporate/project leadership style (democracy/autocracy)
Centralization of adoption decisions
CEO innovativeness, attitude and IT knowledge
Managers tenure
Managers age
CEO involvement
Managers educational level
2 Communication behaviour Effectiveness of information flows (communication flows) within organisations
Level of internationalization and demographic factors
Availability and effectiveness of construction supply chain management
Availability and effectiveness of procurement system (inbound logistics)
Strength of relationships with other parties (clients, governments, labour unions)
External integration
Learning from external sources
Increase of Design and Build procurement
Integration of operation
Involvement in collaborative Procurement methods
(continued on next page)
120
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
121
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Need to change in organisation characteristics for BIM (i.e., types, size, structure, systems, culture, styles,
processes)
Need for innovation/diffusion of innovation
Incentives for adoption
Individual/adopter enjoyment with innovation
Competitive advantages in market (core/unique competencies)
Increased demand for BIM
Willingness to use BIM by supply chain stakeholders
8 Organisation structure and Whole organisational structural complexity
size Organisation size
Information system department size
Table A11
The cluster of External environment characteristics.
122
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
Table A12
A Sample of the measurement items/questions.
Constructs Items
Coercive pressures 1 - Our main clients believe that we should use BIM.
2 - Our trading partners put pressure upon us to use BIM.
4 - We have adopted BIM to respond to the BIM level 2 mandate by the UK government.
Mimetic pressures 7 - Our main competitors who have adopted BIM are perceived favourably by clients.
Relative advantage 17 - Adopting BIM is perceived to improve the productivity of our organisation.
21 - Adopting BIM is perceived to improve task performance.
Compatibility 23 - Adopting BIM is perceived to be compatible with existing processes in our organisation.
Trialability 30 - We adopted BIM after a trial period.
Technological factors 36 - The availability and affordability of BIM technology were key in the decision to adopt BIM.
Top management 38 - Our top management has the willingness to support change
support
Communication 42 - Our organisation initiated a network of connections to know more about BIM when we first time had heard about
behaviour it.
Financial resources 48 - Our organisation perceived BIM as an affordable innovation.
Organisational readiness 52 - Our organisation has provided a professional BIM technology training.
Social motivations 61 - It was necessary that both the individuals and groups in our organisation share the motivation for BIM adoption.
Organisational culture 70 - BIM adoption requires organisational restructuring.
Fig. A1. CFA measurement model of the External Environment Characteristics construct.
123
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
124
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
125
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
the Chinese construction industry, Autom. Constr. 39 (2014) 32–46, https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.004. [40] M. Petticrew, H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical
[12] M. Abubakar, Y.M. Ibrahim, D. Kado, K. Bala, Contractors perception of the factors Guide, John Wiley & Sons, 1405150149, 2008.
affecting building information modelling (BIM) adoption in the Nigerian con- [41] J.J. Randolph, A guide to writing the dissertation literature review, Pract. Assess.
struction industry, in: R.R. ISSA, I. FLOOD (Eds.), 2014 International Conference Res. Eval. 14 (2009) 1–13. Available at https://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n13.pdf ,
on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, American Society of Civil Accessed date: 6 January 2018.
Engineers (ASCE), 2014, pp. 167–178, , https://doi.org/10.1061/ [42] F. Rowe, What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommenda-
9780784413616.022. tions, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23 (2014) 241–255, https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.7.
[13] L. Seed, The Dynamics of BIM Adoption: A Mixed Methods Study of BIM as an [43] J. Vom Brocke, A. Simons, K. Riemer, B. Niehaves, R. Plattfaut, A. Cleven,
Innovation Within the United Kingdom Construction Industry (Doctoral thesis), Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature
University of Huddersfield, 2015, http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/26167. search in information systems research, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37 (2015)
[14] N. Gu, K. London, Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC in- 205–224 http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/9.
dustry, Autom. Constr. 19 (2010) 988–999, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon. [44] G. Schryen, G. Wagner, A. Benlian, Theory of Knowledge for Literature Reviews:
2010.09.002. An Epistemological Model, Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of IS Literature,
[15] D. Cao, H. Li, G. Wang, W. Zhang, Linking the motivations and practices of design https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:dar:wpaper:75207, (2015).
organizations to implement building information modeling in construction pro- [45] M.M. Kamal, Z. Irani, Analysing supply chain integration through a systematic
jects: empirical study in China, J. Manag. Eng. (2016) 04016013, , https://doi. literature review: a normative perspective, Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 19 (2014)
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000453. 523–557, https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0491.
[16] B. Gledson, Investigating the Diffusion of 4D BIM Innovation, (2015), https://doi. [46] M. Abdul Hameed, Adoption Process of Information Technology (IT) Innovations
org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0066. in Organizations, Doctoral (PhD thesis) Brunel University, 2012, http://bura.
[17] S. Kim, C.H. Park, S. Chin, Assessment of BIM acceptance degree of Korean AEC brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7348.
participants, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015- [47] B. Kitchenham, S. Charters, Guidelines for performing systematic literature re-
0647-y. views in software engineering, Technical Report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report,
[18] E. Waarts, Y.M. Van Everdingen, J. Van Hillegersberg, The dynamics of factors EBSE, 2007, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006.
affecting the adoption of innovations, J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 19 (2002) 412–423, [48] B.H. Kwasnik, The role of classification in knowledge representation and dis-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(02)00175-3. covery, Libr. Trends 48 (1999) 22 DOI: https://surface.syr.edu/istpub/147.
[19] T. Oliveira, M. Thomas, M. Espadanal, Assessing the determinants of cloud com- [49] A. Reisman, On alternative strategies for doing research in the management and
puting adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors, Inf. Manag. social sciences, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 35 (1988) 215–220, https://doi.org/10.
51 (2014) 497–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006. 1109/17.7443.
[20] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, Free Press, 9780743258234, [50] D. Zuppa, R. Issa, Aligning interests key to developing trust in deploying colla-
2003. borative technologies in construction, CIB W78 2008 International Conference on
[21] A.H. Van De Ven, Central problems in the management of innovation, Manag. Sci. Information Technology in Construction, 2008 15 – 17 July 2008 Santiago, Chile.
32 (1986) 590–607, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590. DOI: http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB16867.pdf.
[22] F. Damanpour, S. Gopalakrishnan, Theories of organizational structure and in- [51] El-Diraby, T., Lima, C. & Feis, B. 2005. Domain taxonomy for construction con-
novation adoption: the role of environmental change, J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 15 cepts: toward a formal ontology for construction knowledge. Journal of computing
(1998) 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00029-5. in civil engineering, 19, 394–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-
[23] M.A. Al-Shammari, An appraisal of the protocol that was published by the 3801(2005)19:4(394).
Construction Industry Council (CIC) to facilitate the use of building information [52] M. Sun, X. Meng, Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction projects,
modelling (BIM) on projects, in: A. Raiden, E. Aboagye-Nimo (Eds.), 30th Annual Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (2009) 560–572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.
Association of Researchers in Construction Management Conference, ARCOM 10.005.
2014, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 2014, pp. 623–632 [53] J. Garrett, J. Teizer, Human factors analysis classification system relating to
available at http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/26867 , Accessed date: 6 January human g awareness taxonomy in construction safety, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135
2018. (2009) 754–763, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000034.
[24] M. Attarzadeh, T. Nath, R.L.K. Tiong, Identifying key factors for building in- [54] X. Wang, P.S. Dunston, A user-centered taxonomy for specifying mixed reality
formation modelling adoption in Singapore, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. systems for aec industry, Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 16 (2011) 493–508,
Law 168 (2015) 220–231, https://doi.org/10.1680/mpal.15.00030. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590.
[25] Z. Ding, J. Zuo, J. Wu, J.Y. Wang, Key factors for the BIM adoption by architects: a [55] M. Kassem, B. Succar, N. Dawood, Building Information Modeling: Analyzing
China study, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 22 (2015) 732–748, https://doi.org/10. Noteworthy Publications of Eight Countries Using a Knowledge Content
1108/ECAM-04-2015-0053. Taxonomy, American Society of Civil Engineers, 0784413983, 2015.
[26] A.T. Haron, A. Marshall-Ponting, N.A.W.I. Mohd, M. N, M.H. Ismail, Building in- [56] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, Producing a systematic review, in: D.A. Buchanan,
formation modelling: a case study approach to identify readiness criteria for A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage
process requirement, Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 8 (2014) 85–91. Available at Publications Ltd, London, 1412931185, 2009.
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20143319605 , Accessed date: 6 [57] M.A. Hameed, S. Counsell, S. Swift, A conceptual model for the process of IT in-
January 2018. novation adoption in organizations, J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 29 (2012) 358–390,
[27] W. Wu, R.R.A. Issa, BIM education and recruiting: survey-based comparative https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.007.
analysis of issues, perceptions, and collaboration opportunities, J. Prof. Issues Eng. [58] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
Educ. Pract. 140 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000186. information technology, MIS Q. 13 (1989) 319–340, https://doi.org/10.2307/
[28] M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe, J. Zuo, B. Baroudi, Adopting global virtual engineering 249008.
teams in AEC projects: a qualitative meta-analysis of innovation diffusion studies, [59] P.J. Dimaggio, W.W. Powell, The Iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
Constr. Innov. 15 (2015) 151–179, https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-12-2013-0058. and collective rationality in organizational fields, Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (1983)
[29] K. Dopfer, J. Foster, J. Potts, Micro-meso-macro, J. Evol. Econ. 14 (2004) 147–160, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
263–279, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-004-0193-0. [60] N. Fareed, G.J. Bazzoli, S.S. Farnsworth Mick, D.W. Harless, The influence of in-
[30] B. Succar, The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement, CIB World stitutional pressures on hospital electronic health record presence, Soc. Sci. Med.
Congress, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2012.659506. 133 (2015) 28–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.047.
[31] S.K. Boell, D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, A hermeneutic approach for conducting litera- [61] D. Henderson, S.D. Sheetz, B.S. Trinkle, The determinants of inter-organizational
ture reviews and literature searches, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34 (2014) 257–286 and internal in-house adoption of XBRL: a structural equation model, Int. J.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol34/iss1/12. Account. Inf. Syst. 13 (2012) 109–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.02.
[32] M.E. Jennex, Literature reviews and the review process: an editor-in-chief's per- 001.
spective, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 36 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073- [62] M.-C. Tsai, K.-H. Lai, W.-C. Hsu, A study of the institutional forces influencing the
016-0019-2. adoption intention of RFID by suppliers, Inf. Manag. 50 (2013) 59–65, https://doi.
[33] W.R. King, J. He, Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS re- org/10.1016/j.im.2012.05.006.
search, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16 (2005) 32, https://doi.org/10.2307/ [63] R. Ahuja, M. Jain, A. Sawhney, M. Arif, Adoption of BIM by architectural firms in
2289738. India: technology–organization–environment perspective, Archit. Eng. Des.
[34] J. Webster, R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a Manag. 12 (2016) 311–330, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1186589.
literature review, MIS Q. (2002) xiii–xxiii https://www.jstor.org/stable/i388215. [64] C.D.D. Ramanayaka, S. Venkatachalam, Reflection on BIM development practices
[35] H.M. Cooper, Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, Sage, at the pre-maturity, Process. Eng. 123 (2015) 462–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
0761913483, 1998. proeng.2015.10.092.
[36] G.B. Jackson, Methods for integrative reviews, Rev. Educ. Res. 50 (1980) [65] D. Cao, H. Li, G. Wang, Impacts of isomorphic pressures on BIM adoption in
438–460, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050003438. construction projects, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (2014), https://doi.org/10.
[37] J.A. Lepine, A. Wilcox-King, Editors' comments: developing novel theoretical in- 1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000903.
sight from reviews of existing theory and research, Acad. Manag. Rev. (2010) [66] V. Peansupap, D. Walker, Exploratory factors influencing information and com-
506–509, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok506. munication technology diffusion and adoption within Australian construction or-
[38] C. Okoli, A critical realist guide to developing theory with systematic literature ganizations: a micro analysis, Constr. Innov. 5 (2005) 135–157, https://doi.org/
reviews, Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. (2012), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2115818. 10.1108/14714170510815221.
[39] G. Paré, M.-C. Trudel, M. Jaana, S. Kitsiou, Synthesizing information systems [67] M.-C. Tsai, W. Lee, H.-C. Wu, Determinants of RFID adoption intention: evidence
knowledge: a typology of literature reviews, Inf. Manag. 52 (2015) 183–199, from Taiwanese retail chains, Inf. Manag. 47 (2010) 255–261, https://doi.org/10.
126
A.L. Ahmed, M. Kassem Automation in Construction 96 (2018) 103–127
1016/j.im.2010.05.001. foundation for industry stakeholders, Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 357–375, https://
[68] M. Mom, M.H. Tsai, S.H. Hsieh, Developing critical success factors for the as- doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.10.003.
sessment of BIM technology adoption: part II. Analysis and results, J. Chin. Inst. [88] A. Ahmed, J. Kawalek, M. Kassem, A conceptual model for investigating BIM
Eng. 37 (2014) 859–868, https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2014.888798. adoption by organisations, LC3 2017: Volume I – Proceedings of the Joint
[69] V. Singh, J. Holmstrom, Needs and technology adoption: observation from BIM Conference on Computing in Construction (JC3). Heraklion, Greece, 2017,
experience, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 22 (2015) 128–150, https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.24928/JC3-2017/0103.
1108/ECAM-09-2014-0124. [89] E. Papadonikolaki, V. Vrijhoef, H. Wamelink, The interdependences of BIM and
[70] M. Talukder, Factors affecting the adoption of technological innovation by in- supply chain partnering: empirical explorations, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 12 (6)
dividual employees: an Australian study, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 40 (2012) (2016) 476–494, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1212693.
52–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.160. [90] M. Kassem, B. Succar, Macro BIM adoption: comparative market analysis, Autom.
[71] J. Rogers, H.Y. Chong, C. Preece, Adoption of building information modelling Constr. 81 (2017) 286–299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.005.
technology (BIM): perspectives from Malaysian engineering consulting services [91] EU BIM TASK GROUP, Handbook for the Introduction of Building Information
firms, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 22 (2015) 424–445, https://doi.org/10.1108/ Modelling by the European Public Sector, Pan European, EU BIM Task Group,
ECAM-05-2014-0067. 2017, http://www.eubim.eu/downloads/EU_BIM_Task_Group_Handbook_FINAL.
[72] M.S. Mizruchi, L.C. Fein, The social construction of organizational knowledge: a PDF , Accessed date: 6 January 2018.
study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism, Adm. Sci. Q. [92] D. Cao, G. Wang, H. Li, M. Skitmore, T. Huang, W. Zhang, Practices and effec-
44 (1999) 653–683, https://doi.org/10.2307/2667051. tiveness of building information modelling in construction projects in China,
[73] I. Yitmen, The challenge of change for innovation in construction: a north Cyprus Autom. Constr. 49 (Part A) (2015) 113–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.
perspective, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 1319–1328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2014.10.014.
buildenv.2005.10.032. [93] R. Takim, M. Harris, A.H. Nawawi, Building information modeling (BIM): a new
[74] Teo, H.-H., Wei, K. K. & Benbasat, I. 2003. Predicting intention to adopt inter- paradigm for quality of life within architectural, engineering and construction
organizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Q., 19–49. DOI: https:// (AEC) industry, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 101 (2013) 23–32, https://doi.org/10.
doi.org/10.2307/30036518. 1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.175.
[75] J.-Y. Son, I. Benbasat, Organizational buyers' adoption and use of B2B electronic [94] K. London, V. Singh, Integrated construction supply chain design and delivery
marketplaces: efficiency- and legitimacy-oriented perspectives, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. solutions, Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 9 (2013) 135–157, https://doi.org/10.1080/
24 (2007) 55–99, https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240102. 17452007.2012.684451.
[76] A.Y. Al-Sabawy, Measuring e-Learning Systems Success, University of Southern [95] M. Juszczyk, M. Výskala, K. Zima, Prospects for the use of BIM in Poland and the
Queensland, 2013, http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/27422. Czech Republic – preliminary research results, Process. Eng. 123 (2015) 250–259,
[77] E.L. Paiva, A.V. Roth, J.E. Fensterseifer, Organizational knowledge and the man- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.086.
ufacturing strategy process: a resource-based view analysis, J. Oper. Manag. 26 [96] H. Son, S. Lee, C. Kim, What drives the adoption of building information modeling
(2008) 115–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.05.003. in design organizations? An empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting
[78] R.E. Schumacker, R.G.U.H.B.G.C.U.B.I.R.V.F.A. Lomax, A Beginner's Guide to architects' behavioral intentions, Autom. Constr. 49 (Part A) (2015) 92–99,
Structural Equation Modeling, Taylor & Francis, 1841698911, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.10.012.
[79] J. Hair, R. Anderson, B. Black, B. Babin, Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson [97] S.A. Sherer, C.D. Meyerhoefer, L. Peng, Applying institutional theory to the
Education, 9780133792683, 2016. adoption of electronic health records in the U.S, Inf. Manag. (2016), https://doi.
[80] A. Farrell, Insufficient Discriminant Validity: A Comment on Bove. Pervan, Beatty, org/10.1016/j.im.2016.01.002.
(2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003. [98] I.L. Wu, J.L. Chen, A stage-based diffusion of IT innovation and the BSC perfor-
[81] W.W. Chin, The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, mance impact: a moderator of technology-organization-environment, Technol.
Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Forecast. Soc. Chang. 88 (2014) 76–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.
Mahwah, NJ, US, 1998(ISBN: 0-8058-2677-7 (Hardcover); ISBN: 0-8058-3093-6 06.015.
(Paperback)). [99] F. Damanpour, S. Gopalakrishnan, The dynamics of the adoption of product and
[82] K.H. Guo, Y. Yuan, N.P. Archer, C.E. Connelly, Understanding nonmalicious se- process innovations in organizations, J. Manag. Stud. 38 (2001) 45–65, https://
curity violations in the workplace: a composite behavior model, J. Manag. Inf. doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00227.
Syst. 28 (2011) 203–236, https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280208. [100] S. Shim, M. Chae, B. Lee, Empirical analysis of risk-taking behavior in IT platform
[83] D. Gefen, D. Straub, A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial migration decisions, Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (2009) 1290–1305, https://doi.
and annotated example, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16 (2005) 5 http://aisel.aisnet. org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.004.
org/cais/vol16/iss1/5. [101] H. Liu, W. Ke, K.K. Wei, J. Gu, H. Chen, The role of institutional pressures and
[84] P. Holmes-Smith, Advanced Structural Equation Modelling Using Amos Australian organizational culture in the firm's intention to adopt internet-enabled supply
Consortium for Social and Political Research Incorporated, Monash University, chain management systems, J. Oper. Manag. 28 (2010) 372–384, https://doi.org/
Clayton, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-3930-0.ch006. 10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.010.
[85] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, [102] J.F. Harrell, Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models,
9780070478497, 1994. Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis, Springer, Nashville, TN,
[86] G.R. Hancock, R.O. Mueller, Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable 9783319194240, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7.
systems, Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future, 2001, pp. 195–216, , [103] S. Murray, J. Peyrefitte, Knowledge type and communication media choice in the
https://doi.org/10.12691/education-3-1-10. knowledge transfer process, J. Manag. Issues 19 (1) (2007) 111–133 Retrieved
[87] B. Succar, Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40601196 , Accessed date: June 2018.
127